The Economist - USA (2019-11-23)

48 Europe The EconomistNovember 23rd 2019

2 Department policy in eastern Europe. He

believed America’s sharp criticism of cor-

ruption was hurting it diplomatically,

pushing countries like Hungary, Romania

and Bulgaria closer to Russia. Mr Mitchell

resigned early this year. But while many

ambassadors still pursue anti-corruption

policies, they can no longer be sure the

White House is behind them.

Instead of backing anti-corruption

stances by its embassies, the Trump ad-

ministration has sometimes undercut

them. Mr Trump’s withdrawal of Ms Yova-

novitch (and the failure of Mike Pompeo,

the secretary of state, to defend her) had a

chilling effect on diplomats. Bill Taylor,

who replaced Ms Yovanovitch as ambassa-

dor, has testified to a “second track” of di-

plomacy, in which those with personal

connections to Mr Trump (such as his law-

yer, Rudy Giuliani) sidelined the govern-

ment’s official policymaking process.

A similar split has emerged in Hungary,

where Mr Trump’s politically appointed

ambassador (a big campaign donor) ar-

ranged a visit to the White House by Viktor

Orban, the prime minister. That circum-

vented officials who wanted to keep Mr Or-

ban’s corrupt and Russia-friendly govern-

ment at arm’s length.

In Ukraine, the anti-corruption reform-

ers whom America supported for years

have become collateral damage in the im-

peachment drama. Defenders of Mr Trump

have revived baseless allegations against

Antac, a renowned rule-of-law group, that

were originally concocted by Ukrainian of-

ficials the group accused of corruption.

Pro-Trump social-media botnets have

spread conspiracy theories about Daria Ka-

leniuk, the group’s director. “It is the first

time we have been hit with such a well-or-

ganised smear campaign from America.

We are used to that coming from klepto-

crats here in Ukraine,” says Ms Kaleniuk.

The impeachment conflict may also

hurt independent anti-corruption prose-

cutors, such as those in Romania, who de-

pend for information on co-operation with

American intelligence agencies. Those

agencies will be less eager to share infor-

mation if they do not think the White

House cares about the issue. Anti-corrup-

tion activists say it does not; they have

learned to phrase their appeals as efforts to

protect American investors. “Words like

‘rule of law’, we understand now, don’t

open any doors with this administration,”

says Melissa Hooper, of Human Rights

First, an American advocacy group.

Under Mr Obama, budget messages to

Congress described foreign aid for

“strengthen[ing] rule-of-law and anti-cor-

ruption measures” in Europe as part of

America’s strategy for countering Russian

aggression. In Mr Trump’s latest budget

message the word “corruption” does not

appear in connection with Russia. usaid

still offers grants for rule-of-law pro-

grammes, but the administration has tried

to slash their budgets each year. For 2020 it

asked that non-military aid to Ukraine be

cut from $250m to $145m, and to Moldova

from $52m to $18m. So far Congress has

kept aid at the higher level, and anti-cor-

ruption activists in the region say Ameri-

can embassies still support them.

In other places America is simply a less

significant part of the story. In Slovakia,

where a huge anti-corruption movement

over the past year has upended the political

establishment, the Americans “haven’t

been that important”, says Miroslav Be-

blavy, an mpfrom an anti-corruption party.

Relations have been dominated by Slova-

kia’s decision in August to buy American

f-16 fighter jets. Indeed, many countries in

the region are buying American hardware.

Romania and Bulgaria have both recently

bought f-16s. They would be happy to see

relations go back to a more transactional

basis with fewer pesky questions. “They’re

all buying our planes because that’s how

they get influence,” says Ms Hooper.

Yet the security provided by such deals

will be illusory if formerly communist

countries do not battle corruption. On the

American side, the political will is dwin-

dling. Many frustrated anti-corruption ex-

perts have left the State Department, Trea-

sury and other agencies; others are

considering it. “They can survive another

year,” says a former State Department offi-

cial. “Four would be hard.”^7

T

o defendtheirindependencethe

Swiss have mountains, conscription

and a fierce sense of self-reliance. They

also have a vast stockpile of food, medi-

cine, animal feed and cooking oil, which

they have maintained since the 1920s.

This makes sieges easier to withstand,

but costs a fortune. So in April the Feder-

al Office for National Economic Supply

announced a plan to trim it a little. In

future, it suggested, it would no longer

pay for a huge emergency supply of

coffee. This wonderful drink, it claimed,

is not “vital for life”.

The Alpine nation’s coffee-lovers and

sellers choked on their macchiatos.

Switzerland’s 8.5m residents sip around

9kg (20lb) of coffee per person annually,

twice as much as Americans, according

to the International Coffee Organisation.

A Swiss breakfast without coffee would

be like a Swiss army knife without a tool

for removing stones from horses’

hooves. A poll on Twitter (paid for by

Migros, a supermarket chain, which

owns Delica, a coffee brand), found that

two-thirds of respondents could barely

imagine a life without coffee. The federal

office took note of the outrage and post-

poned a decision about the plan’s imple-

mentation until next year. It may aban-

don it altogether.

The 15 big Swiss coffee retailers, roast-

ers and importers, such as Nestlé, are

required by law to store heaps of raw

coffee. Together, these mandated coffee

reserves amount to about 15,000

tonnes—enough for three months’ con-

sumption. The government finances the

storage costs through a levy on imports

of coffee. All 15 companies are in favour

ofmaintainingthecoffeereserve—as

long as they are paid for it.

ig Kaffee, a lobby group, asks why the

government wants to scrap a stockpile

that has served Switzerland so well.

Shortages are possible, it warns. Low

water levels of the river Rhine last year,

for instance, led to bottlenecks in the

coffee supply chain. A longer interrup-

tion would have “devastating” conse-

quences for the industry. Moreover,

coffee has health benefits, especially in

moments of stress, claims igKaffee.

Quite so. Food shortages, were they to

happen, would surely be stressful. Also,

the Swiss army can hardly be expected to

remain alert without coffee. Come to

think of it, is there enough chocolate in

case of a national emergency?

A nation of have-beans

Switzerland’s coffee stockpile

If disaster strikes, the Swiss want to be caffeinated

No one feels neutral about coffee